Not correct Donnie. I try not to judge. So you place Fenetry E Eagle with ethics. Are you implying that there are ethics in the animal world?

I never stated that at all. I indicated that we humans and Fenetry have a place in the food chain as assigned by nature and it is not amoral to eat meat in either case.

Do you believe you have a higher moral/ethical base than Fenetry?

Certainly but that does not detract away from the pragmatic reality that I temper my kills with a search for humaneness while playing the omnivore role Nature or God put me in. Eating is amoral & all the hand wringing apologists in the world hate to admit that they are all involved in killing animals for themselves to have a successful run at live. BTW that comment was severed from the completed sentence but it does indicate your judgemental behavior which is too late to be denied now. Your goal post shift can not change that.

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

I might point out the clarification that human eating is not quite amoral as there is a moral opposition to eating other humans ........ not to mention the other various moral restrictions placed by religions. The natural concept eating of anything, including siblings or offspring, would be amoral.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I might point out the clarification that human eating is not quite amoral as there is a moral opposition to eating other humans ........ not to mention the other various moral restrictions placed by religions. The natural concept eating of anything, including siblings or offspring, would be amoral.

I might point out the clarification that human eating is not quite amoral as there is a moral opposition to eating other humans ........ not to mention the other various moral restrictions placed by religions. The natural concept eating of anything, including siblings or offspring, would be amoral.

As in pigs eating their young but as noted in a famous case up here in Canada after an airplane crash an Inuit boy died rather than eat a fellow human being who died in a plane crash but a nurse on that flight survived because she chose to eat the flesh of fellow crash victims. In both cases respect can be given to the Inuit boy and the nurse for their life choices because we are the animal that understands the moral boundaries. It must have difficult for a 14-year-old boy to die rather than eat human flesh but just as difficult for a well-educated nurse to choose the abhorrent amoral choice of eating human flesh in order to survive. As humans we accept both amoral choices above but if the nurse had killed a survivor to sustain her own life then a boundry would have crossed that we do not worry over while eating corn or meat that was harvested from many animal deaths which 98% view as amoral while 2% PRETEND they are above the immorality of causing animal deaths.

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

I might point out the clarification that human eating is not quite amoral as there is a moral opposition to eating other humans ........ not to mention the other various moral restrictions placed by religions. The natural concept eating of anything, including siblings or offspring, would be amoral.

As in pigs eating their young but as noted in a famous case up here in Canada after an airplane crash an Inuit boy died rather than eat a fellow human being who died in a plane crash but a nurse on that flight survived because she chose to eat the flesh of fellow crash victims. In both cases respect can be given to the Inuit boy and the nurse for their life choices because we are the animal that understands the moral boundaries. It must have difficult for a 14-year-old boy to die rather than eat human flesh but just as difficult for a well-educated nurse to choose the abhorrent amoral choice of eating human flesh in order to survive. As humans we accept both amoral choices above but if the nurse had killed a survivor to sustain her own life then a boundry would have crossed that we do not worry over while eating corn or meat that was harvested from many animal deaths which 98% view as amoral while 2% PRETEND they are above the immorality of causing animal deaths.

Neither choice was amoral as each has a clear modern moral component. If there was no moral component the boy would not have had a problem eating in the same fashion as the nurse. The circumstances alone allowed the moral objection to be overcome ... at least for the nurse. The morals of the modern society oppose cannibalism, just as they oppose murder or theft, which are also amoral actions in nature.

Note that if there were no moral component the "abhorrent amoral choice" would not be called "abhorrent" would it?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I might point out the clarification that human eating is not quite amoral as there is a moral opposition to eating other humans ........ not to mention the other various moral restrictions placed by religions. The natural concept eating of anything, including siblings or offspring, would be amoral.

As in pigs eating their young but as noted in a famous case up here in Canada after an airplane crash an Inuit boy died rather than eat a fellow human being who died in a plane crash but a nurse on that flight survived because she chose to eat the flesh of fellow crash victims. In both cases respect can be given to the Inuit boy and the nurse for their life choices because we are the animal that understands the moral boundaries. It must have difficult for a 14-year-old boy to die rather than eat human flesh but just as difficult for a well-educated nurse to choose the abhorrent amoral choice of eating human flesh in order to survive. As humans we accept both amoral choices above but if the nurse had killed a survivor to sustain her own life then a boundry would have crossed that we do not worry over while eating corn or meat that was harvested from many animal deaths which 98% view as amoral while 2% PRETEND they are above the immorality of causing animal deaths.

Neither choice was amoral as each has a clear modern moral component. If there was no moral component the boy would not have had a problem eating in the same fashion as the nurse. The circumstances alone allowed the moral objection to be overcome ... at least for the nurse. The morals of the modern society oppose cannibalism, just as they oppose murder or theft, which are also amoral actions in nature.

Note that if there were no moral component the "abhorrent amoral choice" would not be called "abhorrent" would it?

yes they would because human ethics abhore cannalbalism from the comfort of their armchairs. We chose to look upon the eating of the dead passengers as amoral because the nurse sustained her life.

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

I might point out the clarification that human eating is not quite amoral as there is a moral opposition to eating other humans ........ not to mention the other various moral restrictions placed by religions. The natural concept eating of anything, including siblings or offspring, would be amoral.

As in pigs eating their young but as noted in a famous case up here in Canada after an airplane crash an Inuit boy died rather than eat a fellow human being who died in a plane crash but a nurse on that flight survived because she chose to eat the flesh of fellow crash victims. In both cases respect can be given to the Inuit boy and the nurse for their life choices because we are the animal that understands the moral boundaries. It must have difficult for a 14-year-old boy to die rather than eat human flesh but just as difficult for a well-educated nurse to choose the abhorrent amoral choice of eating human flesh in order to survive. As humans we accept both amoral choices above but if the nurse had killed a survivor to sustain her own life then a boundry would have crossed that we do not worry over while eating corn or meat that was harvested from many animal deaths which 98% view as amoral while 2% PRETEND they are above the immorality of causing animal deaths.

Neither choice was amoral as each has a clear modern moral component. If there was no moral component the boy would not have had a problem eating in the same fashion as the nurse. The circumstances alone allowed the moral objection to be overcome ... at least for the nurse. The morals of the modern society oppose cannibalism, just as they oppose murder or theft, which are also amoral actions in nature.

Note that if there were no moral component the "abhorrent amoral choice" would not be called "abhorrent" would it?

Donnie Mac Leod wrote:

yes they would because human ethics abhore cannalbalism from the comfort of their armchairs. We chose to look upon the eating of the dead passengers as amoral because the nurse sustained her life.

The eating of human flesh is morally wrong according to our society, but in this case the greater moral wrong of suicide by starvation mitigated it .... at least it did in the case of the nurse.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I might point out the clarification that human eating is not quite amoral as there is a moral opposition to eating other humans ........ not to mention the other various moral restrictions placed by religions. The natural concept eating of anything, including siblings or offspring, would be amoral.

As in pigs eating their young but as noted in a famous case up here in Canada after an airplane crash, an Inuit boy died rather than eat a fellow human being who died in a plane crash but a nurse on that flight survived because she chose to eat the flesh of fellow crash victims. In both cases respect can be given to the Inuit boy and the nurse for their life choices because we are the animal that understands the moral boundaries. It must have difficult for a 14-year-old boy to die rather than eat human flesh but just as difficult for a well-educated nurse to choose the abhorrent amoral choice of eating human flesh in order to survive. As humans we accept both amoral choices above but if the nurse had killed a survivor to sustain her own life then a boundry would have crossed that we do not worry over while eating corn or meat that was harvested from many animal deaths which 98% view as amoral while 2% PRETEND they are above the immorality of causing animal deaths. [/quote]

Neither choice was amoral as each has a clear modern moral component. If there was no moral component the boy would not have had a problem eating in the same fashion as the nurse. The circumstances alone allowed the moral objection to be overcome ... at least for the nurse. The morals of the modern society oppose cannibalism, just as they oppose murder or theft, which are also amoral actions in nature.

Note that if there were no moral component the "abhorrent amoral choice" would not be called "abhorrent" would it?[/quote]

Donnie Mac Leod wrote:

yes they would because human ethics abhore cannalbalism from the comfort of their armchairs. We chose to look upon the eating of the dead passengers as amoral because the nurse sustained her life.

Quote:

The eating of human flesh is morally wrong according to our society, but in this case the greater moral wrong of suicide by starvation mitigated it .... at least it did in the case of the nurse.

Or she couldn't stand the pangs of hunger and didn't care that her Soul might be offended or she didn't think she has a soul to worry over and thus is not concerned with any type of morality..

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

yes they would because human ethics abhore cannalbalism from the comfort of their armchairs. We chose to look upon the eating of the dead passengers as amoral because the nurse sustained her life.

Quote:

The eating of human flesh is morally wrong according to our society, but in this case the greater moral wrong of suicide by starvation mitigated it .... at least it did in the case of the nurse.

Or she couldn't stand the pangs of hunger and didn't care that her Soul might be offended or she didn't think she has a soul to worry over and thus is not concerned with any type of morality..

As souls are not required to be affected by moral issues, that is a moot point. The fact is consuming human flesh is now generally considered to be immoral by modern society, as well as many older societies, which adds a moral aspect to eating. The other addition to the moral aspect is the religious restrictions, such as the Jewish Kosher diet and the Halal for Islam.

I might point out the clarification that human eating is not quite amoral as there is a moral opposition to eating other humans ........ not to mention the other various moral restrictions placed by religions. The natural concept eating of anything, including siblings or offspring, would be amoral.

As in pigs eating their young but as noted in a famous case up here in Canada after an airplane crash an Inuit boy died rather than eat a fellow human being who died in a plane crash but a nurse on that flight survived because she chose to eat the flesh of fellow crash victims. In both cases respect can be given to the Inuit boy and the nurse for their life choices because we are the animal that understands the moral boundaries. It must have difficult for a 14-year-old boy to die rather than eat human flesh but just as difficult for a well-educated nurse to choose the abhorrent amoral choice of eating human flesh in order to survive. As humans we accept both amoral choices above but if the nurse had killed a survivor to sustain her own life then a boundry would have crossed that we do not worry over while eating corn or meat that was harvested from many animal deaths which 98% view as amoral while 2% PRETEND they are above the immorality of causing animal deaths. [/quote]

Quote:

Neither choice was amoral as each has a clear modern moral component. If there was no moral component the boy would not have had a problem eating in the same fashion as the nurse. The circumstances alone allowed the moral objection to be overcome ... at least for the nurse. The morals of the modern society oppose cannibalism, just as they oppose murder or theft, which are also amoral actions in nature.

Note that if there were no moral component the "abhorrent amoral choice" would not be called "abhorrent" would it?

Donnie Mac Leod wrote:

yes they would because human ethics abhore cannalbalism from the comfort of their armchairs. We chose to look upon the eating of the dead passengers as amoral because the nurse sustained her life.

Quote:

The eating of human flesh is morally wrong according to our society, but in this case the greater moral wrong of suicide by starvation mitigated it .... at least it did in the case of the nurse.

Nice job of agreeing with what I already noted since in the nurse's case she felt her life choice had become amoral and over -ruled the immorality and as in the case of the Andes survivor humanity was both replused and thankful that there were actually survivors no matter the loss of ethics and moral choices..

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Neither choice was amoral as each has a clear modern moral component. If there was no moral component the boy would not have had a problem eating in the same fashion as the nurse. The circumstances alone allowed the moral objection to be overcome ... at least for the nurse. The morals of the modern society oppose cannibalism, just as they oppose murder or theft, which are also amoral actions in nature.

Note that if there were no moral component the "abhorrent amoral choice" would not be called "abhorrent" would it?

Donnie Mac Leod wrote:

yes they would because human ethics abhore cannalbalism from the comfort of their armchairs. We chose to look upon the eating of the dead passengers as amoral because the nurse sustained her life.

Quote:

The eating of human flesh is morally wrong according to our society, but in this case the greater moral wrong of suicide by starvation mitigated it .... at least it did in the case of the nurse.

Nice job of agreeing with what I already noted since in the nurse's case she felt her life choice had become amoral and over -ruled the immorality and as in the case of the Andes survivor humanity was both replused and thankful that there were actually survivors no matter the loss of ethics and moral choices..

Except I did not agree with the amoral, or lack of moral concern, with cannabalism, but pointed out there was an offsetting moral concern. If eating of humans is amoral there is no moral issue, but if it is acceptable in certain cases the moral opposition is mitigated and not removed. The two definitions are mutually exclusive, so a moral issue cannot be made into an amoral issue because of an offsetting situation. The moral aspect will always remain.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Reminds me of the story of the whaler Essex in 1819. Nature herself, in the form of an enraged sperm whale of great size, swam as fast as it could and butted the ship head first. Enraged at the killing of another in the pod, he broke the keel and shove in the planks, sinking the ship. The sailors on the small whale boats got what they could from the wreck, and because of the (unfounded later)fear of cannibals on the nearest island, set out for South America, much further away.They found it necessary to eat their comrades as they died. Then later, hunger drove them to draw straws. The shortest would sacrifice his life, and the second shortest would have to kill him with a pistol. The Captain ended up eating his nephew, who drew the short straw. The mate who drew the second shortest and shot him, was not charged when they were finally found after over 3 months at sea. The sailors in the other boat survived similarly, and the third boat was never found.The reports from the Captain and First Officer were read years later, by a young author named Herman Melville, and made into the fiction, Moby Dick.Of interest to this is that the whaling ship Ann Alexander was also sunk by a whale in 1851, and the whaling Bark Kathleen was sunk by a whale in 1901. In each case the survivors were rescued in a week or less. It is unknown how many more were sunk by the whales they hunted, but had no survivors.People have eaten people out of desperation, or custom, whether a natural death or murdered, since pre-history. The latest I remember is the case of the Andean plane crash, documented with a TV program. I never heard of the Canadian plane crash story, until now. It might be more recent.Personally, I would eat road kill if it was edible, but would not eat a human. I have lived long enough to where I just wouldn't be that desperate to live.In the future, though, with the various human populations in differential states of collapse from overpopulation, I see cannibalism as being common. In some areas this could be in 20 years, in others 40. I think some of them would organize into gangs, armed, with what transportation is possible, and roaming for food including humans weaker than them. In the end killing each other to eat, until the last one succumbs to disease or starvation.

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

Neither choice was amoral as each has a clear modern moral component. If there was no moral component the boy would not have had a problem eating in the same fashion as the nurse. The circumstances alone allowed the moral objection to be overcome ... at least for the nurse. The morals of the modern society oppose cannibalism, just as they oppose murder or theft, which are also amoral actions in nature.

Note that if there were no moral component the "abhorrent amoral choice" would not be called "abhorrent" would it?

Donnie Mac Leod wrote:

yes they would because human ethics abhore cannalbalism from the comfort of their armchairs. We chose to look upon the eating of the dead passengers as amoral because the nurse sustained her life.

Quote:

The eating of human flesh is morally wrong according to our society, but in this case the greater moral wrong of suicide by starvation mitigated it .... at least it did in the case of the nurse.

Nice job of agreeing with what I already noted since in the nurse's case she felt her life choice had become amoral and over -ruled the immorality and as in the case of the Andes survivor humanity was both replused and thankful that there were actually survivors no matter the loss of ethics and moral choices..

Except I did not agree with the amoral, or lack of moral concern, with cannabalism, but pointed out there was an offsetting moral concern. If eating of humans is amoral there is no moral issue, but if it is acceptable in certain cases the moral opposition is mitigated and not removed. The two definitions are mutually exclusive, so a moral issue cannot be made into an amoral issue because of an offsetting situation. The moral aspect will always remain.

"might point out the clarification that human eating is not quite amoral as there is a moral opposition to eating other humans ........ not to mention the other various moral restrictions placed by religions. The natural concept eating of anything, including siblings or offspring, would be amoral."

You do realize you are using circular logic & a two edged sword at the same time, I hope.

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Reminds me of the story of the whaler Essex in 1819. Nature herself, in the form of an enraged sperm whale of great size, swam as fast as it could and butted the ship head first. Enraged at the killing of another in the pod, he broke the keel and shove in the planks, sinking the ship. The sailors on the small whale boats got what they could from the wreck, and because of the (unfounded later)fear of cannibals on the nearest island, set out for South America, much further away.They found it necessary to eat their comrades as they died. Then later, hunger drove them to draw straws. The shortest would sacrifice his life, and the second shortest would have to kill him with a pistol. The Captain ended up eating his nephew, who drew the short straw. The mate who drew the second shortest and shot him, was not charged when they were finally found after over 3 months at sea. The sailors in the other boat survived similarly, and the third boat was never found.The reports from the Captain and First Officer were read years later, by a young author named Herman Melville, and made into the fiction, Moby Dick.Of interest to this is that the whaling ship Ann Alexander was also sunk by a whale in 1851, and the whaling Bark Kathleen was sunk by a whale in 1901. In each case the survivors were rescued in a week or less. It is unknown how many more were sunk by the whales they hunted, but had no survivors.People have eaten people out of desperation, or custom, whether a natural death or murdered, since pre-history. The latest I remember is the case of the Andean plane crash, documented with a TV program. I never heard of the Canadian plane crash story, until now. It might be more recent.Personally, I would eat road kill if it was edible, but would not eat a human. I have lived long enough to where I just wouldn't be that desperate to live.In the future, though, with the various human populations in differential states of collapse from overpopulation, I see cannibalism as being common. In some areas this could be in 20 years, in others 40. I think some of them would organize into gangs, armed, with what transportation is possible, and roaming for food including humans weaker than them. In the end killing each other to eat, until the last one succumbs to disease or starvation.

It is amazing that the Andean plane crashed Oct13, 1972, and the Canadian plane crashed Dec8. 1972. The story is very unlike the previous post about it. Only the pilot survived by eating the dead, while with the soccer team more survived.In googling it brought up the 1800s Donner Party, and this guy:http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/seri ... index.html

"Israel Swan he was a rugged trapping manUntil Alfred Packer cooked him in an iron frying panAnd few was tougher than Shannon Wilson BellTough as salted leather; Packer salted this man wellThen there was Frank Miller, then there was George NoonPacker et Frank with a fork and he et George with a spoonAnd James Humphrey was the last one from UtahAnd Packer's ax and mouth was the last thing Humphrey sawThere was six men started out with Packer as their guideAnd Packer he came back with the other five insidePacker couldn't lead a party and he couldn't hunt no meatBut give him an ax and a skillet and packer he could eat

Colorado folks wanted to give his neck a stretchThey gather at Lake City and said let us hang the wretchMelville shook his gavel at Packer's matted headAnd said "Hang him by the neck until he is dead, dead, dead"But Packer pled his case and the Supreme Court set him freeO is it a crime for a man to eat when he is hungaryHe was a cannibal and a murderer and a son of a wretched gunBut given an ax and an appetite, you might do what Packer doneThere was six men started out with Packer as their guideAnd Packer he came back with the other five insidePacker couldn't lead a party and he couldn't hunt no meatBut give him an ax and a skillet and packer he could eat"......

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein